Indian Military Nursing Service Personnel Included in "Ex-Servicemen" Category Under Punjab Rules: Supreme Court Affirms.


16 April 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Armed Forces Tribunal >> Miscellaneous  

In a significant judgment delivered today, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, clarifying that personnel released from the Indian Military Nursing Service (IMNS) are entitled to be considered under the "ex-servicemen" category for recruitment to state civil services in Punjab. The ruling came in a case concerning a recruitment advertisement issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC).

The central question before the apex court was whether the term "ex-servicemen" as defined in the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982 (Punjab Rules, 1982) encompasses individuals who have served in and been released from the IMNS.

The case arose when the PPSC issued an advertisement in December 2020 for various posts, including Extra Assistant Commissioner (Under Training) in the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch), with reservations for "ex-servicemen." The appellant, an ex-serviceman who served as a Captain in the Medical Core of the Indian Army, was selected and appointed to this post in December 2022.

 

 

Respondent No. 4, on the other hand, was released from the IMNS after completing her service period and applied under the same "ex-servicemen" category. However, her candidature was rejected by the state government in May 2021, based on an interpretation that IMNS personnel did not qualify as "ex-servicemen."

Subsequently, the respondent challenged this rejection in a writ petition before the High Court. A single judge initially dismissed her petition, relying on the Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979 (Central Rules, 1979) to hold that IMNS personnel were not eligible for reservation under the "ex-servicemen" category.

However, a division bench of the High Court overturned this decision, concluding that the Punjab Rules, 1982, which govern the recruitment in question, did not exclude those retired or released from the IMNS from availing the benefits available to ex-servicemen. The High Court consequently directed the state to appoint the respondent if she was found meritorious, along with notional benefits of service.

The appellant then approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's order. The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments from all parties, affirmed the High Court's judgment.

The apex court clarified that the Central Rules, 1979 were not applicable in this case as the recruitment was for state government posts, and the Punjab government was entitled to frame its own rules under Article 309 of the Constitution. The relevant rules were the Punjab Rules, 1982.

The definition of "ex-serviceman" under Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Rules, 1982 includes those who have served in any rank in the "Naval, Military and Air Forces of the Union" and have been released under specific circumstances, including release after completing the specified period of engagement and receiving gratuity.

The Court emphasized the significance of the Military Nursing Service Ordinance, 1943, which constitutes the IMNS as an "auxiliary force of the Indian Military" and "part of the armed forces of the Union." Personnel of the IMNS hold commissioned ranks, and their service is governed by the MNS Ordinance and certain provisions of the Army Act, 1911. The Supreme Court also referred to its earlier judgment in Jasbir Kaur v. Union of India, which had held that the IMNS is a part of the Indian Army, albeit a distinct class.

Considering the purpose of the Punjab Rules, 1982 to provide employment opportunities to those who have served in the armed forces, and the explicit inclusion of "Military" in the definition of "ex-serviceman," the Supreme Court found no justifiable reason to exclude IMNS personnel. The Court noted that the respondent No. 4 met the criteria under Rule 2(c)(iv) of the Punjab Rules, 1982, as she was released after completing her service period and received gratuity.

The Court rejected the argument put forth by the State of Punjab based on clarifications issued by the Kendriya Sainik Board, stating that while the Board formulates policies for ex-servicemen welfare, its interpretations do not override the rules framed by the state government under its constitutional powers.

Regarding the appellant, who had already been appointed and continued in service, the Supreme Court acknowledged her eligibility as an ex-serviceman. While upholding the High Court's decision that respondent No. 4 was also eligible, the apex court clarified that the appointment of respondent No. 4 should not automatically lead to the termination of the appellant's service, considering the time elapsed and her continued service.

The Supreme Court directed that respondent No. 4, if found meritorious and otherwise eligible, should be given an appointment with notional benefits of service but without backwages.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment and providing clarity on the inclusion of IMNS personnel within the definition of "ex-servicemen" under the Punjab Rules, 1982.


  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1912